Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages. † † † † † † †

Quote

But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

T2 is a virulent phage that never integrates into the host genome.Phages are virusses and have nothing to do with mitochondria which don't exist in bacteria and are actually a hallmark of eukaryotes. In addition, irrespective of the fact that they don't exist in bacteria and that the cell would be to small to harbor any what would make a mitochondrium beneficial for an E.coli cell?

Be that as it may be. How does your theory explain that the vast majority of infected cells die while some (very few indeed) survive? Remember that the bacteria are derived from a single cell and all phages in the system are derived from a single phage. How do the surviving cells differ from their relatives in terms of what you think is "intelligence"? And how does this "intelligence" make them survive?

The theory explains why the vast majority of infected cells die while some survive, by modeling it. And it looks like you're the one most into the T2 phage process. So model it as described in theory then show what you end up with for changing circuits and variables over the course of the infection cycle(s).

You don't have a bit of a clue in any field of biology.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

The theory explains why the vast majority of infected cells die while some survive, by modeling it. And it looks like you're the one most into the T2 phage process. So model it as described in theory then show what you end up with for changing circuits and variables over the course of the infection cycle(s).

I am sure your theory also describes why lunatics are spamming the web. And it not only looks like you are an idiot extraordinaire. So, model your idiocy as described in theory and keep what you end up with for yourself.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I am sure your theory also describes why lunatics are spamming the web. And it not only looks like you are an idiot extraordinaire. So, model your idiocy as described in theory and keep what you end up with for yourself.

The only thing I can say to something so nonsensical, is: Vigilante science (like found in this forum) only exists in forums for bashing ID, Creationism and religion. It's not a problem at all at FractalForums, Biology-Online and other serious math/science or science education forums. In fact, the contrast helps show how religious driven it actually is in a forum like this one. Someone like you is always there to tell me what I already knew in grade school, while putting on an act to make it seem I have no knowledge of science.

As you saw from last page, I have good reason to expect a better biological model from you, before being able to take you seriously. Having none is typical for someone with no experience in other areas of science required for a functional scientific understanding of what biological intelligence is, and have modeled it enough to know what its main features are.

Needing to discredit other scientific communities in order to make yourself appear to be the authority in how intelligence works, is not the sign of a biologist who has to model incredibly complex systems. They appreciate all the ideas they can get. Protest has been from where none need science, for their religious discussions.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

???

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

And this: †

Quote

Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.

I hope it's not incipient aphasia. Gary, have you had a checkup recently?

I don't believe I have to punctuate it, into baby-steps, to help them, figuring it out. †But here, we go:

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing, it's where the theory is from, where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

After having linked to the 2008 Intelligence Generator, it should have clear enough.

Gary, is English your first language? Or eighth? You should stop struggling with this crutch and lay out your theory in your native language. No worries; we'll have it translated. I only suggest this for your benefit.

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

???

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

And this: †

Quote

Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.

I hope it's not incipient aphasia. Gary, have you had a checkup recently?

I don't believe I have to punctuate it, into baby-steps, to help them, figuring it out. †But here, we go:

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing, it's where the theory is from, where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

After having linked to the 2008 Intelligence Generator, it should have clear enough.

Gary, is English your first language? Or eighth? You should stop struggling with this crutch and lay out your theory in your native language. †No worries; we'll have it translated. †I only suggest this for your benefit.

Quick question. Why did you choose a response to the tactic of making an issue out of typos, from all the rest of my responses in the thread?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

???

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

And this: † †

Quote

Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.

I hope it's not incipient aphasia. Gary, have you had a checkup recently?

I don't believe I have to punctuate it, into baby-steps, to help them, figuring it out. †But here, we go:

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing, it's where the theory is from, where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

After having linked to the 2008 Intelligence Generator, it should have clear enough.

Gary, is English your first language? Or eighth? You should stop struggling with this crutch and lay out your theory in your native language. †No worries; we'll have it translated. †I only suggest this for your benefit.

Quick question. Why did you choose a response to the tactic of making an issue out of typos, from all the rest of my responses in the thread?

A typo is the result of careless or incompetent typing. Your problem is incompetent writing, partially resulting from incompetent thinking.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

After covering chemical/biological speciation and a hundred or so other things, there should be good questions pertaining to all that. Itís instead like trying to carry on a discussion with someone with their fingers in their ears continually telling you they canít understand a word youíre saying.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

After covering chemical/biological speciation and a hundred or so other things, there should be good questions pertaining to all that. Itís instead like trying to carry on a discussion with someone with their fingers in their ears continually telling you they canít understand a word youíre saying.

It's not fingers in our ears, Gary. It's pebbles in your mouth. And you are sadly no Demosthenes.

After covering chemical/biological speciation and a hundred or so other things, there should be good questions pertaining to all that. Itís instead like trying to carry on a discussion with someone with their fingers in their ears continually telling you they canít understand a word youíre saying.

It's not fingers in our ears, Gary. It's pebbles in your mouth. And you are sadly no Demosthenes.

After reading his bio, I'm OK with not being Demosthenes!

Quote

DemosthenesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demosthenes (English pronunciation: /d??m?s.??ni?z/, Greek: ??????????, D?mosthťn?s [d??most?ťn??s]; 384Ė322 BC) was a prominent Greek statesman and orator of ancient Athens. His orations constitute a significant expression of contemporary Athenian intellectual prowess and provide an insight into the politics and culture of ancient Greece during the 4th century BC. Demosthenes learned rhetoric by studying the speeches of previous great orators. He delivered his first judicial speeches at the age of 20, in which he argued effectively to gain from his guardians what was left of his inheritance. For a time, Demosthenes made his living as a professional speech-writer (logographer) and a lawyer, writing speeches for use in private legal suits.

Demosthenes grew interested in politics during his time as a logographer, and in 354 BC he gave his first public political speeches. He went on to devote his most productive years to opposing Macedon's expansion. He idealized his city and strove throughout his life to restore Athens' supremacy and motivate his compatriots against Philip II of Macedon. He sought to preserve his city's freedom and to establish an alliance against Macedon, in an unsuccessful attempt to impede Philip's plans to expand his influence southwards by conquering all the other Greek states. After Philip's death, Demosthenes played a leading part in his city's uprising against the new King of Macedonia, Alexander the Great. However, his efforts failed and the revolt was met with a harsh Macedonian reaction. To prevent a similar revolt against his own rule, Alexander's successor in this region, Antipater, sent his men to track Demosthenes down. Demosthenes took his own life, in order to avoid being arrested by Archias, Antipater's confidant.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Like it or not, Gary, the bottom line is that you can't express yourself. I can't tell whether it means that you can't think straight, but that's irrelevant. No one here has any idea what your theory is simply because you are unable to explain it succinctly.

You know how I choose which scientific papers to read? I read abstracts (short summaries). When an abstract sounds promising I read the paper. Your abstract doesn't sound promising. And having sampled some of your prose, I don't think the papers are worth my time.

Could I be wrong? Of course. But that's your problem, not mine. It's a free world and I spend my time as I please.

As you saw from last page, I have good reason to expect a better biological model from you, before being able to take you seriously. Having none is typical for someone with no experience in other areas of science required for a functional scientific understanding of what biological intelligence is, and have modeled it enough to know what its main features are.

You didn't even realize a well established Nobel prize awarded biological model when I mentioned it. BTW, it didn't require any programing when it has been formulated.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Like it or not, Gary, the bottom line is that you can't express yourself. I can't tell whether it means that you can't think straight, but that's irrelevant. No one here has any idea what your theory is simply because you are unable to explain it succinctly.

You know how I choose which scientific papers to read? I read abstracts (short summaries). When an abstract sounds promising I read the paper. Your abstract doesn't sound promising. And having sampled some of your prose, I don't think the papers are worth my time.

Could I be wrong? Of course. But that's your problem, not mine. It's a free world and I spend my time as I please.

Considering how in some areas of science no good deed goes unpunished, I seriously do not have the time or resources to go over this all over again for you. After such a successful crusade to drive people like me out of science and into poverty, just be thankful my phone service is still on and Iím online.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Considering how in some areas of science no good deed goes unpunished, I seriously do not have the time or resources to go over this all over again for you.

Yes you do. Proof of that will come when you land at yet another forum posting exactly the same stuff as you've been doing for the last 5 years.

† † †

Quote

After such a successful crusade to drive people like me out of science and into poverty, just be thankful my phone service is still on and Iím online.

You were never in science in the first place, Gary.

Gary, every place you arrive and present your work you are met with the exact same criticisms....

1) You are incoherent - that means people cannot understand what you are talking about.

2) Your work is incoherent - that means people cannot understand what it means.

3) You do not understand the nature of a scientific theory - having a badge from Planet Source Code does not in any way prove otherwise.

4) You steadfastly refuse to make any predictions based on your theory that people can test to see if the theory is useful.

Do you see the pattern here, Gary?

Now, you can do one of two things.

A) Take the criticism seriously (seeing that everywhere you go it's the same).

B) Cry about how the man is keeping scientific mavericks like you down; and then find another forum to post your stuff - rinse and repeat.

My money's on B.

I see your pattern, and know the drill. Itís the usual political rhetoric used to stop politically inconvenient scientific theory from being written. Thatís why I have not been wasting all my time trying to please ones with fingers in their ears at forums like this one, and can be found (among other places) on Planet Source Code where they (surprise!) only care how well the code/model/theory performs.

So, as Demosthenes might say: I am not here because I need your sympathy! I am now here because you need mine!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

As I earlier explained, the problem is from protesting crackpots who only in their own minds are representative of "scientific establishment" which has no problem with me being here, helping you with your science work.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If your game is to make it appear that I "do not understand the nature of a scientific theory" then you were already taken as seriously as you deserve.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

:???:

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

No no, it's Gary and (uh, everybody else?) at AtBC.

Anyway, maybe if he would refrain from lumping several different subjects together into one.

There's a reason why chemistry and biology are generally regarded as separate subjects, even if biology does depend on chemistry (but not vice versa). (After all, (inorganic) chemistry is the more elementary of the two subjects. )

I see your pattern, and know the drill. Itís the usual political rhetoric used to stop politically inconvenient scientific theory from being written.

Nobody hinders your writing because it is your right to do so. But the rest of the human population has the right to ignore you and those of us who actually had a look into what you believe is a theory can and IMHO actually have to call it BS. Calling it BS doesn't address the public because any reader immediately realizes it is BS. Calling it BS is solely addresses you. We tried to help you but you refused help. Thus, we can let this thread die or turn it into your private echo chamber. You will just continue to make a fool of yourself.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

We disgaree on what a theory is, but you've been peddling your VB simulation(?) from planet source code (which is simply that, not a hotbed for biological insights) for years now. No one seems to agree with your view of what you've done. So, crank or genius? Why are you here rather than UD. They'd love some more psuedo-science. You're a troll. That's why.

Gary, I said nothing about typos. You can't write. You can't form coherent sentences. You splice fragmentary thoughts together with commas regardless of whether they have anything to do with each other. You're not even very good at supportive clauses or subject/verb agreement.

You are unable to communicate in English. This is why I asked if it was your native language. I'm wondering if explaining your theory in whatever your native language is would allow you to more clearly disseminate it. If this is the case, you should try it. We'll get it translated into English.

If your game is to make it appear that I "do not understand the nature of a scientific theory" then you were already taken as seriously as you deserve.

Can you explain your definition of a scientific theory in less than 100 coherent and unambigious words?

Can you name one capable judge besides your exalted self?

Can you?

Some readers might already be annoyed by my repeating the same thing over and over again, but to reiterate: A scientific theory is a scientific model to scientifically experiment with, which explains how something (such as intelligent cause) works. There is also religious theory (for example Genesis) therefore the only question is whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is a scientific theory or religious theory.

Those who need additional requirements are self-appointing themselves as judges in order to deem that it is not a theory of any kind. Claiming they cannot even understand the theory only helps show how scientifically irresponsible it is to let them be the final judge of anything.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If your game is to make it appear that I "do not understand the nature of a scientific theory" then you were already taken as seriously as you deserve.

Can you explain your definition of a scientific theory in less than 100 coherent and unambigious words?

Can you name one capable judge besides your exalted self?

Can you?

Some readers might already be annoyed by my repeating the same thing over and over again, but to reiterate: A scientific theory is a scientific model to scientifically experiment with, which explains how something (such as intelligent cause) works. There is also religious theory (for example Genesis) therefore the only question is whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is a scientific theory or religious theory.

Those who need additional requirements are self-appointing themselves as judges in order to deem that it is not a theory of any kind. Claiming they cannot even understand the theory only helps show how scientifically irresponsible it is to let them be the final judge of anything.

What you have is an ill-defined hypothesis. †This means that in order to achieve the status of "theory" you must test your hypothesis, and you must adhere to the general principles of designing experiments. †Once you've done your testing and you have evidence to support the hypothesis, you publish your results. †

Your problem is that you want to go to heaven but you don't want to die first. †After being repeatedly informed that (a) you have no theory (there is no ID theory) and (b) what you do have is unintelligible due to your inability to articulate it, you insist on invoking Humpty Dumptyism in defining your terms and whining about being EXPELLED.

Your "model" doesn't constitute experimental research. †You haven't made any attempt at applying it to the actual blood and guts of biological specimens, and you haven't even hinted at having identified any mechanism(s). †

You have nothing, in other words, †but you want to be recognized as a "pioneer" in biological research. †You are a fully-developed crank, and nothing more.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Oh and (where you check) you'll find that theories are normally published in book form. There is now the internet changing where people find reading material, and areas of science which need to exchange code (not lab-results). Demanding that a theory has to first be presented in a short science journal article is another attempt at ignoring the already existing theory.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Oh and (where you check) you'll find that theories are normally published in book form. There is now the internet changing where people find reading material, and areas of science which need to exchange code (not lab-results). †Demanding that a theory has to first be presented in a short science journal article is another attempt at ignoring the already existing theory.

You also apparently have reading comprehension issues, which comes as no surprise. I don't know whether this is due to some kind of cognitive deficit on your part or just plain mendacity. No one said anything about "Demanding that a theory has to first be presented in a short science journal article..." You test your hypothesis and publish the results. Then real scientists can attempt to duplicate your results and in so doing, add weight to the accuracy of the hypothesis. I said earlier that you have an ill-formed hypothesis because, among other reasons, there isn't even a suggestion as to how it might be tested on actual biological specimens. Surely even you can understand why this is a problem.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

If your game is to make it appear that I "do not understand the nature of a scientific theory" then you were already taken as seriously as you deserve.

Can you explain your definition of a scientific theory in less than 100 coherent and unambigious words?

Can you name one capable judge besides your exalted self?

Can you?

Some readers might already be annoyed by my repeating the same thing over and over again, but to reiterate: A scientific theory is a scientific model to scientifically experiment with, which explains how something (such as intelligent cause) works. There is also religious theory (for example Genesis) therefore the only question is whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is a scientific theory or religious theory.

Those who need additional requirements are self-appointing themselves as judges in order to deem that it is not a theory of any kind. Claiming they cannot even understand the theory only helps show how scientifically irresponsible it is to let them be the final judge of anything.

What you have is an ill-defined hypothesis. †This means that in order to achieve the status of "theory" you must test your hypothesis, and you must adhere to the general principles of designing experiments. †Once you've done your testing and you have evidence to support the hypothesis, you publish your results. †

Your problem is that you want to go to heaven but you don't want to die first. †After being repeatedly informed that (a) you have no theory (there is no ID theory) and (b) what you do have is unintelligible due to your inability to articulate it, you insist on invoking Humpty Dumptyism in defining your terms and whining about being EXPELLED.

Your "model" doesn't constitute experimental research. †You haven't made any attempt at applying it to the actual blood and guts of biological specimens, and you haven't even hinted at having identified any mechanism(s). †

You have nothing, in other words, †but you want to be recognized as a "pioneer" in biological research. †You are a fully-developed crank, and nothing more.

It's worse than that. It's not even clear how your "model" is related to your "theory". How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

And if you're going to answer this with "Study my 40-page spewage of incoherent, data-and-evidence-free logorrhoea", or with another fucking music video, please don't bother.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers